Live data from Hacker News

Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

bbc.com

441–450 of 463 posts

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#441
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're aware of the privacy implications but think people talking about avoiding people who use them are proposing dumb arguments? I don't follow your logic.

How does not talking to people will solve privacy problems of the new technology? Are you assuming that Meta will see that you ignored your coworker with smart glasses and shut down the project, along with Apple and other smart-glasses manufacturers? I'd love to follow your logic, if you can't follow mine.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afraid to read Wikipedia? Unable to? What hellhole are you describing?

20% of adults in the USA read below a 5th-grade level. https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/2024-2025-liter...

So?

If you find Wikipedia too complicated, you probably aren’t looking up your medical diagnoses.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a GoPro better than wearing these glasses while cycling?

People recognize GoPro cameras for what they are. They are easily understood as a camera. Glasshole devices are not as easily recognizable and people honestly may not realize they are being recorded especially when the glasshole does not inform everyone they are being recorded. Now, for your "while cycling" qualifier, why does it matter? Again, if you stop to talk to people while recording and it is not obvious you a…

But you are cycling. Who cares if people know you have a camera or not. Meta glasses are one less thing, whereas a gopro is a second thing.

Pretty rare to stop to talk to people while cycling.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else do you want companies to remove and prevent CSAM? It seems like you must have some human involvement to train and monitor. It’s a terrible job, I wouldn’t want to do it, but someone needs to. Perhaps one day, AI will be accurate enough to not need it, but even then you need someone to process complaints and waivers (like someone’s home photos being inaccurately flagged).

> How else do you want companies to remove and prevent CSAM? Different situation. Facebook has to do CSAM moderation because it's a publishing platform. People will post CSAM on facebook, so they must do moderation. And "just don't have facebook" isn't a solution because every publication of any sort has to deal with this problem; Any newspaper accepting mail has this problem. (Albeit to a much more scaled down versi…

People upload images to openai and have it generate and modify. And it has to not generate csam.

I guess that they process billions of images every day.

I don’t think they’re getting csam from scraping (thankfully, I expect there isnt much publicly available csam).

They aren’t as big as facebook, but they must have this functionality or many users will be hurt.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn't even recommend being in their presence. Great! Now do people with smart TVs and people with smart phones

I'll grant you smartphones, but smart TVs usually don't have cameras/microphones. The problem with smart glasses is that they constantly capture video and upload it to $VENDOR like in this case.

> smart TVs usually don't have cameras/microphones

Friends in industry who are analyzing consumer smart TV sensor data at scale tell me otherwise.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds about right. If you know someone who uses these smart glasses, it's important not to tolerate them whatsoever. Don't speak with them, interact with them. I wouldn't even recommend being in their presence.

> I wouldn't even recommend being in their presence. Great! Now do people with smart TVs and people with smart phones

[deleted]

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#447
post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Them to actually undertake meaningful efforts to reduce the child porn on their platform. Crazy, I know.

Define meaningful then? It's quite odd how you seem to be adamant that there is a perfect solution available yet seem to be talking around it.

[dead]

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#448
post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying so hard not to say child porn.

The problem generalizes, so there's no need to focus on this specific type of content. Care to address the actual issue?

But its not a general problem, it's a problem specifically about child porn that we are discussing. The idea that there is no point in discussing the child porn problem on Facebook is exactly what I'm disputing.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#449

Not sure which is worse here - that Meta are recording video from customers' smart glasses, or that they are firing people who talk about it.

Or maybe that people are wearing surveillance glasses while they fuck their partner? I know we need to push these companies to not be shitheads, but ultimately you can only be a shithead with the data people give to you (with the exception of things like Flock, who are shitheads with "public" surveillance data). I know our culture is so supremely fucked at this point that wearing corporate surveillance goggles during…

People make porn. You look down on them. News at 11.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#450
post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem generalizes, so there's no need to focus on this specific type of content. Care to address the actual issue?

But its not a general problem, it's a problem specifically about child porn that we are discussing. The idea that there is no point in discussing the child porn problem on Facebook is exactly what I'm disputing.

Content moderation is a general problem, whether you're talking about child porn, content intended for mature audiences, or memes about Winnie the Pooh.

What I and others are trying to tell you is that your obsessive focus on Facebook as if they are the root cause of the problem is incorrect. There is no magic solution I'm aware of because each of them have some sort of tradeoff.

The most extreme version of content moderation I can think of is that a human being examines and approves every single message of any kind before it is published, any image of a minor is banned because it's too hard to objectively define child porn (that still leaves the open question of how to determine if someone is a minor visually), and no accounts for anyone under the age of legal majority are allowed, as verified by a legal ID that is checked by a human being.

Even in that case, kids will find some way to get an account or just use their parent's account, and the door is cracked open again. And the pedophiles will just go elsewhere, probably using a service with significantly less resources available to attack the problem, which is probably worse than the status quo.

This doesn't even touch on the privacy concerns that most people would have with every message being reviewed.

As I said before, I would welcome you to share the solution that you imply exists which addresses every issue above.

Post reply on HN